Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 814 (UTT)

Ravi Kumar v. Ranu Sharma

2016-11-09

ALOK SINGH, RAJIV SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma , J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2015 rendered by the learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Original Suit No. 90 of 2015. 2. “Key facts”, necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that appellant has filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage against the respondent. 3. According to the averments made in the appeal, marriage between the parties was solemnised on 23.02.2004. Out of the wedlock, no child was born. After the marriage, respondent lived with the appellant at his residential place. Respondent pressed on the appellant to open a beauty parlour. Appellant assured the respondent that as soon as he would arrange the money, he would open the beauty parlour. The father of the respondent is a greedy person and he used to demand money from the father of the appellant. Respondent has obtained M.Sc. and B.Ed. degrees and she is teaching as a Lecturer in Saint Marry School, Halalpur, Chilkana Road, Saharanpur. Respondent is drawing a salary of Rs.25,000/-. The respondent used to misbehave with the appellant. She has also thrown Mangalshutra on the ground. The matter was settled between the parties on 20.07.2008 wherein the appellant has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-to the respondent. 4. The appellant has led his evidence by filing an affidavit. The affidavit of Dayaram and Smt. Omwati has also been filed. Photocopies of the documents i.e., invitation card, bank draft, settlement deed were placed on record. 5. According to the appellant, the respondent has caused mental and physical cruelty to him. 6. Learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar vide order dated 21.12.2015 has dismissed the petition of the appellant. Hence the present appeal. 7. According to the appellant, the respondent wanted to open a beauty parlour. However, the fact of the matter is that according to his own pleadings, the respondent is duly qualified and she is serving as a Lecturer in Saint Marry School, Halalpur, Chilkana Road, Saharanpur and drawing a salary of Rs.25,000/-. According to the appellant, father of the respondent used to ask for money from the father of the appellant. In this regard, neither any date nor any month or year has been mentioned in the pleadings, when was the money demanded by the father of the respondent. According to the appellant, father of the respondent used to ask for money from the father of the appellant. In this regard, neither any date nor any month or year has been mentioned in the pleadings, when was the money demanded by the father of the respondent. The appellant has not given any specific date, when derogatory remarks were made by the respondent against him. 8. According to the appellant, he has also instituted a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which according to him was decreed on 21.06.2014. However, the certified copy of the same has not been placed on record. The appellant has failed to prove that the respondent has caused physical or mental cruelty to him. It was for the appellant to prove conclusively that respondent has caused physical or mental cruelty to him. 9. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.